As @asifa_majid asks in her perspective "does each culture have its own emotional universe, or is there a bedrock of similarity that unites us all?" JK use a linguistics method 'co-lexification' to look at the semantic networks of emotion terms globallyhttps://science.sciencemag.org/content/366/6472/1444 …
-
-
Prikaži ovu nit
-
Colexification occurs when same word refers to multiple concepts. By tracking co-lex patterns in emotion terms across cultures, JK find BIG variation in how emotion terms relate to each other in different cultures. For awesome, detailed explanation, see https://twitter.com/josh_c_jackson?lang=en …
Prikaži ovu nit -
Some evidence for universality- Languages differ by valence and arousal, and networks that are closer geographically are also closer in their concept mapping, which must have some similarity to compare at all. What does it mean? I'd suggest reading the paper and perspective, but
Prikaži ovu nit -
For as long as I can remember, universalists and constructivists have been duking it out. Make a task easy, looks universal, make it hard, looks constructed, etc. The debate seems intractable. And that's ok! But as an outsider, the debate also seems...stagnant. Not ok.
Prikaži ovu nit -
JK provide something new, I don't expect resolution, but certainly contribution. And by mapping out these networks, it opens the door to new predictions (e.g. applying schema testing methods to emotions across cultures similar to work on color terms and spatial navigation)
Prikaži ovu nit -
Caveats- Field linguists bring their own biases. Also, depends on whether you think emotion language provides any insight into emotion experience. I do. But what's cool is these methods may ultimately help answer the question of how language and thought are connected.
Prikaži ovu nit
Kraj razgovora
Novi razgovor -
Čini se da učitavanje traje već neko vrijeme.
Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.